460 likes | 473 Views
This study synthesizes qualitative research on interprofessional education (IPE) facilitation, exploring factors that impact facilitation and suggesting areas for further research. It highlights key concepts related to logistical and organizational issues, technology, preparation and support, collaborating and co-facilitating, professional development opportunities, and different facilitation approaches.
E N D
Facilitating interprofessional education: Key findings from a synthesis of qualitative research Professor Scott Reeves
Overview Introduction Background Methods Findings Discussion Questions & Comments
Poll Question 1 Who has had experience facilitating IPE? -Yes -No -Not sure
Poll Question 2 Those of you who have facilitated IPE did you find the experience: -Easier than expected -More difficult than expected -Not sure
IPE definition Occasions when two or more professions learn with from and about to improve collaboration and patient care (CAIPE/WHO)
IPE aims Improving IP attitudes/perceptions Enhancing IP skills/behaviour Improving collaborative behaviour Enhancing care delivered to patients
IPE activities Classroom Simulation Workplace Online Blended
Underlying principles Collaborative learner-led Group/team-oriented Non-hierarchical Addresses real-life problems
IPE Drivers Quality & safety Patient-centred care Chronic care Rising costs Media coverage
Central role of IPE facilitator: Setting learning climate Encouraging collaboration Motivating Supporting/guiding
Attributes for IPE facilitator: Experience of collaborative practice, Conflict resolution skills Flexibility Confidence Sense of humour
Growth of literature: Range of competences Interprofessional role models Uncertainty with role Need for faculty development
Aim To undertake a meta-ethnography to synthesise available qualitative research in the IPE field
Objectives Synthesise qualitative research on staff who facilitate IPE Investigate range of factors that affect IPE facilitation Identify gaps in the evidence/suggest areas for research
Note on terminology IPE Facilitators Teachers Mentors Preceptors Supervisors
Meta-ethnography approach (Noblit & Hare 1988) Analysis/synthesis of qualitative data Translation concepts/themes across studies Production of new (generalised) interpretation
Inclusion criteria for studies IPE (as previously defined) Qualitative methods Focus of study: IPE facilitation
Search strategy Electronic databases: ASSIA; BEI; CINAHL; EMBASE; ERIC; HMIC; MEDLINE; PsycINFO Reference lists of included studies Hand searches: Med Teach & J Interprof Care Limited to the past 10 years / English language
Study selection Abstract screening & full-text screening Two reviewers, independent screening Any discrepancies resolved by third reviewer
12 included papers Cooper & Spencer-Dawe (2006); Lindqvist & Reeves (2007); Rees & Johnson (2007); Anderson & Thorpe (2010); Carlson et al (2011); Egan-Lee et al (2011); van Soeren et al (2011); Chipchase et al (2012); Clouder et al., (2012); Hanna et al (2013); Evans et al (2014); Jakobsen & Hansen (2014)
Data abstraction Study characteristics (aims, methods, results) Contextual information Study quality (CASP appraisal tool)
Synthesis Collation of 2nd order interpretations (original author interpretations of data) to identify key concepts Synthesis of key concepts (review team) Development of 3rd order interpretations (key IPE facilitation factors)
Study context Classroom IPE (4 studies) Practice-based IPE (2 studies) Classroom/practice settings (2 studies) Online methods (3 studies) Simulated IPE (1 study)
Facilitation Co-facilitators (6 studies) Single facilitators (5 studies) Clinical supervisor (1 study Nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, medicine
Study information Six case studies Three phenomenological studies One ethnographic study One action research study One study ‘qualitative approach’
Data collection Focus groups (9 studies) Individual interviews (8 studies) Telephone interviews (2 studies) Written reflections (3 studies)
Methodological quality Clear research question, data collection & analysis (12 studies) No sampling strategy (7 studies) Convenience sample (5 studies) Researcher reflexivity (3 studies) CASP Score: good quality
Synthesis 8 key concepts generated from 2nd order interpretations (original authors) 3 three main factors (3rd order interpretations) generated
Key concepts Logistical and organisational issues The influence of technology Preparation and support Collaborating and co-facilitating Professional development opportunity Employing differing facilitation approaches Using experiences to enrich the learning
3rd order interpretations (themes) The effect of contextual characteristics on facilitation How facilitator experience influence their facilitation work Need to use a range of strategies for effective facilitation
IPE facilitation influenced by: -Context in which the IPE is delivered -Nature of the facilitators’ experiences -Use of different facilitation strategies Need to pay attention to these factors in recruitment, preparation & support of facilitators
Specific focus on Initial professional development Use of co-facilitation Combine IPE facilitation methods Use of IPE e-learning Use of prior IP experiences
Some next steps Research on differing learning contexts In-depth studies on co-facilitation Further work on use of prior experiences Studies on faculty development Self-report data – need for observations
Study limitations Excluding grey literature including studies only published in English. Only studies published in the past 10 years Bias for publication of positive results
Poll Question 3 Based on the findings are there any findings which strike you as most important? -Contextual characteristics -Facilitator experience -Using a range of strategies -All equally important -Not sure
Thank you s.reeves@sgul.kingston.ac.uk